M I C IT A E L. 
the Arundels of Llanhern: and one of the members of this 
family procured for this place the privilege of a free bo¬ 
rough, with a market and fair, both of which are now 
dil'ufed. In 30 Edw. I. this little'to v.Tt was called Modifiiole, 
from which it may have derived its prefent name. It 
lent members to parliament 6 Edw. VI. in which return 
it is called Eurgus et Villa Mychel. Mitchel, or Modifiiole. 
It is no-where called St. Michael, until of latter date. 
St. Michael’s fends two members. The right of elec¬ 
tion has been varioufly determined. In the firft cafe 
which appears on the journals, the members Were chofen 
by burghers, a name which does not at prefent exifl in the 
borough. To this report, it is alfo added, “ the inhabit¬ 
ants condefcendedwhich proves, that, the right being 
thus conceded by the inhabitants at large in favour of the 
burgher*, they originally pofTelfed the privilege as it was 
anciently by the inhabitants of every borough in the 
kingdom, before the right was exclnlively granted to 
cities, towns, and boroughs, that were more immediately 
in the intereft of royalty. The next cafe, which was in 
1 64 o, the members were cholen by two elizors, who were 
themfelves chofen by the lord of the manor, and twenty- 
two of the freemen chofen by thefe two elizors. The 
right of eledlion was then difputed between them and the 
commonalty at large, which was decided by the lioul’e in 
favour of the former. Thus was the right of reprefenta- 
tion in this borough transferred from the people to the 
lord of the manor. Another conteft: did not arife for 
twenty-nine years afterwards. At this decifion, the 
rights of the people feemed to have been fo little under¬ 
stood, that neither the lord of the manor ncr the com¬ 
monalty appear to have afferted the leafl claim to the pri¬ 
vilege. The dilpute, at this conteft in r689, was between, 
the inhabitants paying lcot and lot, and the houlekeepers 
at large. The determination of the houfe of commons 
was entirely different from what they had before deter¬ 
mined in 1660 ; for now they, on the 12th of December, 
1689, refolved, “That the right of election of burgeffes 
to ferve in parliament for the laid borough, is in the lords 
of the borough, who are liable to be chofen portreeves 
thereof, and in the houlekeepers of the fame not receiv¬ 
ing alms.”— March 20, 1700. Refolved, “ That the right 
of eledlion of members to ferve in parliament for the bo¬ 
rough of Mitchel in the county of Cornwall, is in the 
portreeves, and lords of the manor who are capable of 
being portreeves, and the inhabitants of the faid borough 
paying fcot and lot.” 
This borough (confifling of 42 voters) was the pro¬ 
perty of lord vifcount Falmouth and fir Francis Baffett, 
between whom a ftrong conteft for luperiority arofe at the 
general election of 1784. Since that time, fir Chriftopher 
Hawkins has purchaled fir Francis Buffett's property. 
Sir Francis has been created a peer by the title of Lord De 
Dunltanville ; and this wretched borough is become the 
joint property of lord Falmouth and iir Chriftopher Haw¬ 
kins, of whom each lends a member. The names of the 
members lo lent, in the prefent parliament, are—the Hon. 
Edward Law, and Charles Trelawney Brereton, elq. 
Wilkes's Britijh Directory. Oldfield's lieprefenlativc HiJ't. 
ofi Great Britain and Ireland. 
MI'CHAEL AN'GELO. See Angelo, vol. p. 697. 
MI'CHAEL ANGIO'LO,dette B attaglie, apainter, 
whole proper name was Marcello Cerquozzi, was born at 
Rome in 1602. His father, who was, a jeweller, dilcern- 
ing his natural inclination for the arts of defign, placed 
liim with different mailers ; but he finally attached him- 
felf to the manner of Bamboccio, and cliole for his fiub- 
jedis feenes in common life, and marches, Ikirmiflies, and 
battles, from his excellence in which lait he derived the 
name by which he is ulually known. He painted with 
■great facility, with ftrong and vivid tints, and threw much 
-fpi.rit into his figures. His works were popular, and 
brought him in a great deal of money. His manners were 
pleafant and jovial, and he had a turn for humorous ob- 
IbrvatioK., which frequently diiplays itfelf in his tvorks. 
His principal performances are at Rome, among which, 
one at the Spada Palace is diftinguifhed by the number 
and variety of its figures, reprefenting a mob of Neapo¬ 
litan lazzaroni fhouting applaufe to Maflaniello. He 
lived in celibacy; but lvis morals were regular, and his 
character was kind and friendly. He died of a fever at 
Rome, in 1660. Pilkinglon. 
MI'CHAEL’s BA'Y (St.), a bay on the weft coaft of 
the ifland of Curagoa.—A bay of Nova Scotia, on the weft' 
coaft of the Bay of Fundy.—A bay on the eaft coaft of 
Labrador. Lat. 52, 55. N. Ion. 5j. 40. W. 
MI'CHAEL CERULA'RIUS, patriarch of Conftanti- 
nople iii the eleventh century, was railed to that dignity 
in the year 1043. He was a perfon of a reftlefs and am¬ 
bitious fpirit; a determined enemy to the church of Rome 
and the papal claims ; and, in the year 1053, the reviver 
of the famous conteft between the Greek and Latin, 
churches, which had been fufpended for a confiderable 
time. The pretexts which were employed to juftify this 
nevr rupture, were zeal for the truth, and an anxious, 
concern about the interefts of religion ; but its true- 
caufes were the arrogance and ambition of the Grecian 
patriarch and the Roman pontiff: the latter was con- 
ftantly forming the moll artful flratagems to reduce the 
former under his yoke; and, on the other hand, the Grecian 
pontiff was not only determined to refufe obilinately the 
leaft mark of lubmiflion to his haughty rival, but was alfo. 
laying fchemes for extending his own dominion, and for 
reducing all the Oriental patriarchs under his fupreme 
jurifdidtion. Among the meafures to which they mutu¬ 
ally had recourfe, in order to fap the foundation of each 
other’s authority and influence with the people, were ac- 
cufations of holding corrupt doclrir.es, or herefies, of the 
moft dangerous nature. Oti the prefent occafion, Ceru- 
larius ftruck the firft blow', by a letter written in his own. 
name, and in the name of Leo bifhop of Acrida, in which 
he publicly accufed the Latins of various errors of confe- 
quence. Of fucli a del’cription, among others which are 
enumerated by ecclefiaflical hiltorians, were their falling 
on the fabbath, or feventh day of the week ; their per¬ 
mitting the ufe of milk and cheefe in the firft week of 
Lent; their ufing unleavened bread in the celebration of 
the Lord’s fupper; their allowing their priefls to be beard- 
lefs ; their confining themfelves to one fingle immeriion 
in the rite of baptifm, See. Such trifling objedts as thefe, 
in thofe dark times, were conlidered to be fo ferious and 
important, as to excite a fatal fchifm, and kindle a fu¬ 
rious war betw'een the Greeks and Latins, who carried 
their animofities to the greatefl lengths, and loaded each 
other with reciprocal invedlives and imprecations. To 
the letter of Cerularius, pope Leo IX. wrote a moll im¬ 
perious reply ; and at the fame time affembled a council 
at Rome, in which the Greek churches were folemnly ex¬ 
communicated. In our life of that pontiff, (vol. xii. p.488.) 
we have mentioned the unfuccelsful iffue of the effort 
made by the emperor Conftantine Monomachus to Hide 
this controverly in its birth ; and alfo the infolent and 
imprudent proceeding of the papal legates at Conftanti- 
nople, in publicly excommunicating the patriarch, and 
all who fhould continue in his communion. Out of re- 
fentment, the patriarch excommunicated thefe legates 
with all their adherents and followers, in a public coun¬ 
cil ; and procured an order from the emperor for burning 
the fentence pronounced againfl the Greeks. Thefe vio¬ 
lent meafures were followed, on both fides, v. bh a num¬ 
ber of controverfial writings, which were filled with the 
moft bitter and irritating invedlives, that contributed to 
widen the breach between the Greek and Latin churches, 
till it became irreparable. In the year 1057, when the 
Itruggle took place between the emperor Stratioticus and 
Ifaac Comnenus for the imperial crown, our patriarch 
embraced the interefts of the latter, and was one of the 
principal inflruments of railing him to that dignity. In 
the following year, however, the emperor being com¬ 
pelled by the eihauited Hate of the public treafury to lay 
heavy 
